mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only and PII-free behavior, generic analysis, and the exact return components (verdict, requirements by severity, source links, deep link). This is rich behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences front-load the purpose, then input format, then outputs and safety. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers return values in detail, input formats, and safety traits. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, with no obvious gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic meaning beyond reiterating accepted formats. The examples in the description duplicate schema examples. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks visa needs and entry/transit requirements for a passport-destination pair, with official sources. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from the sibling country_code tool, which handles code conversion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use: whenever a traveler needs visa/entry requirements. It explicitly accepts both ISO codes and country names, signaling no need for prior code conversion via the sibling tool, but it does not name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context but not explicit alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation normalizes to uppercase, accepts both names and codes, and returns an error on unresolvable input, which covers the key behaviors of this simple lookup tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and efficiently includes an example, usage context, and error behavior without any redundant or fluff content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity, one parameter, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the function, including return behavior (uppercase code) and error conditions. It could have explicitly stated the return type, but it is clearly implied from the phrasing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the sole parameter 'name' with 100% coverage, so the description adds limited meaning. The example 'Kenya' → 'KE' reinforces the schema but does not fundamentally alter parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Resolve') and resource (country name to ISO-3166-1 alpha-2 code), includes a concrete example ('Kenya' → 'KE'), and explicitly ties to the sibling tool check_visa, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context by stating 'Useful before calling check_visa' and mentions it accepts existing ISO-2 codes, implying it can also validate codes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.